Smart people tend to get laid more easily..

What is UP with the nationalism of these Belgians over here? Don't they know that Belgium is just a forgotten Dutch province anyway?






(I'm REALLY pushing their buttons now, check out the reactions on this one :P)
 
Grin said:
And I've been to Lithuania a couple of times actually, and I DON'T understand what women walk around with over there.

The women look GREAT, taken care of, in shape, seductive. But (most) men look like f*cking cavemen, I've never seen such disregard for personal hygiene. I mean, it's not difficult to get a haircut or buy fashionable clothes is it?

No offense to Lithuanian men, these are just my observations.
Click to expand...

Oh please DO offend those.. creatures.. Even if I'm one of Lithuanian men, most of the time I feel like I don't belong there.
Says something about intelligence of most of our women, don't it? One of the main reasons I get laid very rarely - I don't even try to. Believe me, if your a smart guy, few minutes of talking to one of those women WILL prevent you from getting it up for quite some time.

But seriously.. WHY do people who conduct researches like that dare call themselves scientists? Of course I know the answer - so-called "science" is becoming new religion, new way to bullshit people, to steal their attention from more important stuff. So now any bullshiter like that can be called "scientist".
 
Multidirectional said:
But seriously.. WHY do people who conduct researches like that dare call themselves scientists? Of course I know the answer - so-called "science" is becoming new religion, new way to bullshit people, to steal their attention from more important stuff. So now any bullshiter like that can be called "scientist".
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? You are the one who began equating this scientific investigation with religion, and you are disproving your own statement. Convenient?

The term religion is based on claims derived from supernatural origins that by definition cannot be proven or disproven. Science is based on a set of hypothesis-driven and tested theories. In other words science is based on rational, information-based and objective discussion while religion is based on subjective unprovable (or disprovable) tenets. Science and Religion are almost always diametrically opposed approaches, by trying to equate the two your straw man is set up very well.

The research that this travesty of a topic is based on probably comes from the sociology department at UC-Davis, but since I cannot know for certain because the ABC News article does not cite the journal source. This alone makes the premise of this discussion absurd; without knowing who wrote it specifically ABC may just be making shit up.

Grin said:
Why are there so many researches that contradict each other? ANOTHER research said that women go for men that would be able to “protect” them in traditional big-and-burly kind of way.
To be honest, it’s all HORSECRAP. There’s no “women go for this, women go for that”, each and every woman is individual and has her own standards.
But if you really need a "standard" this is what I found out to work most of the time: A social, easy-going personality with a good sense of comedy.
But, again, every woman has her OWN standards, don't expect it to work on EVERYONE.
EDIT:
Looking at the article, they said "the best of BOTH worlds". That ........... makes sense doesn't it? If she can have athletic AND smart. Well.......
They actually needed scientist to prove THAT!?
Click to expand...

The reason this article was written is because it would offend and interest people. It has no merits on its own. To that end it succeeded within the narrow context in which it was written: to get people to read ABC news.

Titillating topics and hot-button issues are a great way of distracting the easily persuadable, which could be a stand-in for 'women at a bar'. Ironic then that the topic of the article is that 'intelligence is sexy'; what better evidence of this claim than someone was able to write an article about intelligence and distract and persuade you into paying attention to it.
 
Murdoch said:
What are you talking about? You are the one who began equating this scientific investigation with religion, and you are disproving your own statement. Convenient?

The term religion is based on claims derived from supernatural origins that by definition cannot be proven or disproven. Science is based on a set of hypothesis-driven and tested theories. In other words science is based on rational, information-based and objective discussion while religion is based on subjective unprovable (or disprovable) tenets. Science and Religion are almost always diametrically opposed approaches, by trying to equate the two your straw man is set up very well.
Click to expand...

Oh, take it easy. I was just speaking in a more.. relaxed way. Seriously I'm just equating religion to a form of control.. And I also said "so-called science", as I recall it.
Well there are many forms of control in this "civilization" of ours, at least to my knowledge. Though I don't claim to know everything..
 
Multidirectional said:
Oh, take it easy. I was just speaking in a more.. relaxed way. Seriously I'm just equating religion to a form of control.. And I also said "so-called science", as I recall it.
Well there are many forms of control in this "civilization" of ours, at least to my knowledge. Though I don't claim to know everything..
Click to expand...

No, this was your actual claim:
But seriously.. WHY do people who conduct researches like that dare call themselves scientists? Of course I know the answer - so-called "science" is becoming new religion, new way to bullshit people, to steal their attention from more important stuff. So now any bullshiter like that can be called "scientist".
Click to expand...

'So-called' is a device for belittling a belief system, just like if I were to say 'so-called religion'. Used it in that context and the breadth of your statement is more ominous.

You are stating that science is the new religion, even though science can never be a religion because science is based on a rational, testable revisable framework vs religion's supernatural and unchanging tenets.

I'll agree with you, science can be misused, and the hype that this article generates is one great example of the potential misuse to distract rather to inform. But that decsision was made by the ABC people, not by the scientists who made the claims. It's an important distinction that shouldn't be overlooked.
 
Murdoch said:
You are stating that science is the new religion
Click to expand...

I'm not. But it maybe too hard for me to express myself in English to convince someone like you, so I'm ending this conversation right here.
Hey let's not disturb the actual topic about women fucking smart men, cause THAT's whats important, right? :)
 
Women will fuck anything under the sun if it ignores them long enough. Woman have a basic instinct to be wooed at. Therefore, smart men take advantage of this.

Mystery solved!

Additional note: If you have a third ear growing out of your face, you are fucked. Not literally.
 
Biologically, women want to have the strongest children, so they are more prone to have sex with Alpha male types especially during ovulation time.

But since human children requires so long to look after, women need a long term meal ticket to insure survival because they would be almost incapacitated to do anything else.

Back then, Alpha males are usually the best hunters , so = best meal ticket.

The situation isn't so clear cut any more. Money/wealth has replaced the need to search for the fastest or strongest mate to insure survival. Therefore, that's why there are lots of hot girls in areas that have decent gatherings of rich men.

If smarter guys = better future career for my investment and my children, why not?

But they better be careful, studies have shown that it's possible for women to have sex with alpha males and then find a long term partner that is better at rearing children, thus the best of both worlds. Evolution gave us 3 ways to deal with this though, 1. most babies tend to look like their fathers when they are born(eliminating the need to second guess), 2. human males' penis have evolved to scoop out the previous guy's(if there is one) sperm, 3. most semen have spermicide. All in all, to make sure you get what you paid for.
 
I would imagine that this study a lie, which was fabricated in order to prevent all the lonely geniuses out there from killing themselves.
 
- NABR* -

I call bullshit on that study.

Usually, chicks that are looking for new daddies for their already existing babies go for smart guys. Girls that have no other choice go for smart guys. Girls that no one in their right mind would go for, go for smart guys.

Not that I'm bitter or anything (grumble, grumble)...

FUCK that, thanks to what I've seen, I no longer consider intelligence a desirable evolutionary trait. If one as an specimen has problems passing one's genes because of "intelligence", I don't see how intelligence would be an advantageous trait.

Face it smartypants, you are in charge of bettering and improving the world so that dumbasses enjoy it.

Not a bitter response, RLY.
 
From my personal experiences, women tend to look for the guys they can manipulate the easiest. The intelligent male knows this, and hangs out in swinger circles, or goes for chicks with low self-esteem.
 
It's not hard to figure out what women want. It's hard to figure out how to give it to them. Why? Because they want everything!

So if you are funny, confidant, decent looking, clean, have a hair cut, use deodorant, shave, have a car, have money, have clothes without holes in them, have a nice place, and if you are tough, yet sensitive, and can cook, you should little difficulty.

It's that easy!

Seriously though, the Thoughtful Young Man (the type that might post on computer game forums) has a hard time getting girls because he totally lives in his own head. And he has for a long time. He broods about his lack of girl-getting, and blames everyone else for it. Stupid shallow girls, stupid neanderthal jocks. Also, smart as they think are, the Young Man is painfully stupid in many ways until he is well into his 20's. Which is about the time he realizes he is not so smart after all.

At least that's what I gather from my own life!
 
Women like strong AND intelligent men? Shit, I would have NEVER guessed.

Honestly, scientists need to concentrate on curing the fucking cancer, instead of researching crap like this.
 
People tend to overlook the fact that it’s not the quantity of the pussy that counts... it’s the quality.

Sure you can go to a club/bar and get as many fat/ugly/"wtf is that" type of girls as you can handle. But in the end, its the quality and so called "upscale" pussy that counts.

Unfortunately for many guys, if you fancy the more "upscale" girls you have to either work for it (which translates into some degree of effort, depending on the girl) or have something they want - which usually translates into money.

Having half a million dollar condo and a high paying job kinda helps though.
 
So yeah, smart people get laid more easy. They don't waste time beating around the bush "Pun intended", and just go get laid. It's not that difficult, and having to rely on having "money" or "put forth effort" in the first place means you failed the sexual encounter have resulted to bribing them for sex.

If this topic is about long term relationships however, which it's not, it's too complicated to diagnose because humans are naturally promiscuous anyways. You could be a lonely socialite intellectual who engages in back-alley sodomy daily, or a happy go lucky monogomite.


I think you guys are crossing 2 different things together than only have some similarities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top